Decide now, what should we call PC style adventure games (puzzlers where you wander the land finding the right item and the right ways to use them, with people like Guybrush Threepwood), and console style adventure games (puzzlers where you wander the land finding the right item and the right way to use it, but in a different style completely, with guys like Link). Should we call one a Quest genre game from now on, or the other?
Calling the console ones adventure games is wrong. They are not... and calling them that in the poll doesn't help matters... :)
Oh, and do we need two threads for this discussion, really? I'd think one is enough...
Had to make a poll, which I THINK requires starting a new thread. So, it seems you haven't voted, or you voted for the one you didn't want, so vote.
Oh, and since almost the only word that can describe what kind of game Zelda is IS adventure (or quest, that's the whole point of the vote), I'd say it's not wrong, just USURPUR!
Zelda is an Action/Adventure.
I prefer to call it a Action-Adventure-RPG, because it isn't a straight Action-Adventure... it has some sizable RPG influences too...
Like what?
Does it have selectable Roles?
Does it have statistical levelling up (exception of Zelda 2)
Does it have mathematical battle systems?
Does it have the word SQUARESOFT WRITTEN ON TEH BOX!?!?!?!?!?!!!!
It has very little RPG influence at all.
I'll take that Squaresoft comment as a joke... it looks like one.
Why RPG? Well, Zelda isn't an action-adventure... its more than that. The gameplay style is VERY different from most games that you think of as Action-Adventure (namely 3d Tomb Raider-type action-adventure games, mostly), so its got to have more to it than that... and it has RPG influence. Quests (Link does FedEx quests just like any good RPG hero), story, gameplay style (you don't exactly 'level up', but sorta do when you get more hearts and items as you complete dungeons)... its more than just a Action-Adventure, and RPG is really the only genre that would fit (and, IMO, it does... even if Zelda has little in common with standard RPGs. RPG isn't a static genre after all... it includes everything from Final Fantasy to Diablo...)
Bah, off to work, reply when I get home.
MAY YOU SUCK A TOENAIL FROM A SNAIL'S TAIL!
Zelda 2 rocked indeed, despite it's leveling up, because it still had heart containers (and magic containers), and the rate of experience gaining was very well done so that you almost didn't even have to hunt battles, so long as you killed everything you encountered and didn't run away like a little girly man. Of course, I'm just saying that. I don't think PH (hey, I think I'll call him pH from now on, like the asidity level) was attacking the game when he made the comment at all.
Good old Guybrush.
"I can hold my breath for ten minutes!"
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I'll take that Squaresoft comment as a joke... it looks like one.
Why RPG? Well, Zelda isn't an action-adventure... its more than that. The gameplay style is VERY different from most games that you think of as Action-Adventure (namely 3d Tomb Raider-type action-adventure games, mostly), so its got to have more to it than that... and it has RPG influence. Quests (Link does FedEx quests just like any good RPG hero), story, gameplay style (you don't exactly 'level up', but sorta do when you get more hearts and items as you complete dungeons)... its more than just a Action-Adventure, and RPG is really the only genre that would fit (and, IMO, it does... even if Zelda has little in common with standard RPGs. RPG isn't a static genre after all... it includes everything from Final Fantasy to Diablo...)
Zelda is an action adventure just like Tomb Raider is. Only a more advanced form. The possible difference being the upgrade system, and the talking to numerous townsfolk. But the interaction with people is hardly an RPG exclusive system, and the health upgrade is hardly that of Experience points. It's more akin to buying an upgrade in armor, as you don't really 'level up'.
Like I said, these are INCREDIBLY light RPG elements that are so diluted it's not even worth mentioning that the game is an Action/Adventure/RPG.
Oh, and Diablo is an Action/RPG :p Although it could be argued that it is more of a traditional RPG than the standard Japanese RPG that we have become associated with. After all, you actually get to CHOOSE your role, not to mention have full control over the customisation of your character, whereas Japanese RPG's have kind of forsaken these traditional styles in the name of storyline (instead of choosing your characters, you are given them through storyline), and fun (I still prefer Materia/Sphere/Item based magic/levelling systems over that found in PC RPG's).
And no, DJ, I was not attacking Zelda 2.. you twit.
ABF is a penis. Simple as that. I don't consider those crappy text-based games to be adventure games since they're not even real computer games. If we count those as computer games then I guess I can count my command prompt window as a computer game. The first real adventure game ever made was "Adventure", which came out before any of those point-and-click PC graphic adventures. Whenever I say "Adventure" game I'm talking about games like Zelda or Tomb Raider. When I talk about games like Monkey Island I either call them "graphic adventures", "PC adventures", or "Point-and-click games".
Zelda is not and RPG. It can be called an action-adventure or an adventure game.
No, Zelda isn't an RPG... but its far closer to being an RPG than it is an adventure game! It doesn't have a whole lot in common with adventure games... Tomb Raider has more, which is why action-adventure is a good label for it. Zelda, with more RPG influence than adventure, definitely belongs in a combonation of all 3 genres (action-adventure-rpg).
Adventure means text and/or graphical adventure games. That is what it is, console or PC... the genre does exist on both systems, so it is the real definition of the genre.
I find it really annoying how often game sites call all KINDS of games adventure games which are not even close to being adventure games... Zelda, Metroid, etc aren't adventure games. Simple as that.
"point and click"? "PC adventure games"? Thats not a good description, given how a lot of them don't require pointing or clicking... (see: Grim Fandango for PC or Monkey Island 4, or Shadows of , both for PC and PS2. All are best with gamepads.) Or how about Full Throttle, Monkey Island 3, or Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis? All three have sizable action parts, yet are definitely adventure games... your seeming dislike/disdain for the genre doesn't change the fact that it is a genre and doesn't include games that are totally different from what the genre is... like any genre...
PC RPGs are the best kind. Console ones can be fun too, but PC ones are better... I'd choose Baldur's Gate II over any console RPG anyday (I mention that one because I recently started... I know, starting a game that could be as long as 200 hours right after I get like 8 other new games is kind of dumb, but its fun...)
Is the name calling
really necessary?
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
I don't consider those crappy text-based games to be adventure games since they're not even real computer games. If we count those as computer games then I guess I can count my command prompt window as a computer game.
If your command prompt had a story and puzzles then sure. Until then... :shake:
:D
What, OB1's great tactic of resorting to namecalling when he's losing a debate doesn't convince you he's right? Its clearly meant to, what with how nice and mature-sounding it is...
Here we go again. I'm going to keep on calling people penises and idiots as long as you guys have those sticks all the way up your asses. The last time I jokingly called someone a name everyone cried like a baby. You guys have gotten too soft.
Sometimes I ask myself why I even bother posting here anymore. If only Nintendorks was still around...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
No, Zelda isn't an RPG... but its far closer to being an RPG than it is an adventure game! It doesn't have a whole lot in common with adventure games... Tomb Raider has more, which is why action-adventure is a good label for it. Zelda, with more RPG influence than adventure, definitely belongs in a combonation of all 3 genres (action-adventure-rpg).
Adventure means text and/or graphical adventure games. That is what it is, console or PC... the genre does exist on both systems, so it is the real definition of the genre.
I find it really annoying how often game sites call all KINDS of games adventure games which are not even close to being adventure games... Zelda, Metroid, etc aren't adventure games. Simple as that.
"point and click"? "PC adventure games"? Thats not a good description, given how a lot of them don't require pointing or clicking... (see: Grim Fandango for PC or Monkey Island 4, or Shadows of , both for PC and PS2. All are best with gamepads.) Or how about Full Throttle, Monkey Island 3, or Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis? All three have sizable action parts, yet are definitely adventure games... your seeming dislike/disdain for the genre doesn't change the fact that it is a genre and doesn't include games that are totally different from what the genre is... like any genre...
PC RPGs are the best kind. Console ones can be fun too, but PC ones are better... I'd choose Baldur's Gate II over any console RPG anyday (I mention that one because I recently started... I know, starting a game that could be as long as 200 hours right after I get like 8 other new games is kind of dumb, but its fun...)
Incredible. ABF actually perfers PC games over console games! *gasp*!! I could care less, falcon.
And I do enjoy some of those pc adventure games. And believe it or not, you're not the authority on this subject. Your only defence is "you're wrong", while I can prove that the console style adventure game came out before the PC one. When it comes to genre definitions, things aren't always quite so black and white. Take the name "RPG" for instance. What does that mean? Role Playing Game? But I play the role of Mario in Super Mario Sunshine, so does that mean that that's an RPG? No, it doesn't. We all know what makes a role-playing game. Sure there are different kinds of RPGs such as the turn-based RPG, the action-RPG, the PC RPG, and the MMORPG, but specifying which one is which isn't necessary. Monkey Island is a graphic adventure, and zelda is an action-adventure. But some people simply call them adventure games. What you are doing is trying to find out which one deserves the name "adventure game", which is absurd. They are two
different kinds of adventure games. And really, if one of them deserves the title it would be the console one since it came out first.
Zelda is a little bit Adventure, and almost no RPG.
I will say this, it's also the single hardest series to 'define' as being a single genre.
It doesn't have to be so complicated. Zelda is an action-adventure game more specifically, but you could simply call it an adventure game. The term "adventure game" is very broad, which is why I find it so funny that ABF is trying to claim it for his favorite kind of adventure game, as if it were some sort of medal. And what will come of this? Is everyone going to have to stop calling Zelda an adventure game?
Zelda is far more Adventure than RPG. Zelda only has the most superficial and simplistic of RPG elements, and even that is enoromously outweighed by the sheer amount of action and puzzles in the game.
Techniclly OB1, you never did proove console style adventure came before PC adventure. All you did was dispute that text adventures are even games. I have to say that since they do in fact have actual gameplay, goals, puzzles, and so on, they ARE in fact games. They are also adventures. So what if the results were only shown in a command prompt? They were still very hard yet very fun games. You did have to solve puzzles, find objects, find out where and how to use them, and in the end, solve some sort of last mystery to end the game. A command prompt can't claim to do that. Any extrapolating you do to show that it's "just a bunch of responses, I can get those from a little batch file" is silly because, simply put, ALL games are "just a bunch of responses", using something a bit more complecated than batch files yes, but in the end they are all just written code responding to user input.
Well, this was fun, but I have to say I'm stepping out now. I hope that my apparent dedication to my point wasn't taken too seriously. I never meant to seem so very stubborn over matters that don't matter at all. As for you OB1, name calling isn't very nice when there's no indication of you ever stopping. You do it all the time. I mean, you seem to be taking this Andy Koffman impersination too far. He died of cancer man, that's what happens to ALL people who imitate him, they get CANCER! Look at Tom Green! He got testicular cancer! First it's lungs, needed to talk all that talk, then the balls needed to get the courage to do that, the next cancer victim is going to get something even worse. Do you REALLY want to be the victim of "cancer of the eternal soul" or whatever F.A.T.E. has in store for you?
Before we start, one prediction. OB1 will either ignore almost every point I make, or only respond to the points I make that he can "refute" (with "facts" that are either wrong or are opinions). As usual... and likely more likely when the post is long, like this one will be.
"Arguing" with OB1 gets really tiresome fast and is pointless. He will 1) never change his mind, no matter how many times he has been proven to be wrong; 2) insult you, which just makes him look stupid (colored by my personal opinions against swearing); 3) argue forever based on often flawed hypotheses that he takes as truths. Etc. Its annoying.
Quote: Incredible. ABF actually perfers PC games over console games! *gasp*!! I could care less, falcon.
Oh come ON! Sure, I overall prefer PC games... but do you honestly think I dislike console games? I like them! Nintendo games are a lot of fun. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't be here, I'd be at a PC board. DO you think I like my favorite adventure game (that would be Grim Fandango) more than Zelda: OoT? Well, NO. Its close (both are in my top 10), but Zelda is definitely several notches higher... OoT is #3 on my best ever list, actually, right after Warcraft III and Starcraft.
Quote: Your only defence is "you're wrong",
READ MY POSTS! I DO A LOT MORE THAN THAT! Better yet, click the links that prove my points!
Quote: while I can prove that the console style adventure game came out before the PC one
This is a case in point. OB1, you have not come even CLOSE to "proving" that console action-adventure games were first. Actually, all you have done is said "console ones were first!" while ignoring the large amount of evidence, with links, that I've provided... you CANNOT deny that Adventure came out in 1972 and was a ADVENTURE GAME. If you deny that, you are saying that a game isn't a game... wait, you did that. Dislike a game/genre all you want... but don't deny its a genre or a game! That is just dumb and so blatantly wrong that arguing it is completely pointeless. You also can't deny that Mystery House, the first graphic adventure, came out in 1980, WELL BEFORE ANY CONSOLE ACTION-ADVENTURE GAME. Or any other kind of console adventurish game. Oh, you can try... you just will be in the same place you are in now: with assertions you make that the facts prove wrong. Way to go.
Oh... and if you think Zelda is an advenure game, you're saying Tomb Raider is one too... or Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine, or a multitude of other Action-Adventures. None of them are. Fine, lets look at Zelda puzzles and quests. Lets see.. there's 'get key/item' (standard game puzzle, any genre); 'retrieve item for me (FedEx)' - standard RPG genre quest; and many puzzles using your weapons to activate things... 'jump over pit', 'use hookshot to cross thing', and the very common jumping puzzle, often with a timed element you activate somehow.
Are these, or other Zelda puzzles, really representative of an adventure game? No. Adventure games do use inventory puzzles, true, but not in the way Zelda does... Zelda does its inventory puzzles in the style of an RPG or Action-Adventure game, not a Adventure game.
Then, of course, theres combat. One hallmark of the adventure genre is that in almost every single adventure game, there is no combat at all. A few are exceptions, as I have said before, but one of those (Monkey Island 3) had it optional, while others like The Last Express, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, and Full Throttle were considered as abnormal adventure games for including such large action elements... Full Throttle in some ways might even be considered a action-adventure. Same with Indy Fate's Fists path. Maybe not, because of the rest of the game clearly being a adventure game, but possibly. Zelda? It has LOTS of Action/RPG-style combat... LOTS. Also, while it definitely has lots of puzzles, they aren't generally the type you see in adventure games... they are the kind found in RPGs, action games, and action-adventure games, not adventure games. Given all of this, I just can't see any way Zelda is an adventure game.
Quote: Role Playing Game? But I play the role of Mario in Super Mario Sunshine, so does that mean that that's an RPG?
Well, in the loosest possible definition, it is... but yeah, when you use the definition of RPG as any game that calls itsself and RPG uses it, no, Mario isn't... it doesn't fit what the genre of RPG "really" is.
One more thing about Zelda... its interesting that you call it an adventure game, because usually people erroneously refer to it as an RPG, not an Adventure... its no more a Adventure than it is an RPG-- it is influenced somewhat by the genre (less so than it was by RPGs, though, by any measure I can see), but isn't in it. It doesn't fit the real genre definition of either.
Let me guess. You will now say that Zelda created some "console adventure game" genre which consists of Action-Adventure and Action-RPG-Adventure (yes, I do believe Zelda really does have a big RPG part in it...) games... either that or what you said most recently --
Quote: Sure there are different kinds of RPGs such as the turn-based RPG, the action-RPG, the PC RPG, and the MMORPG, but specifying which one is which isn't necessary
. That really doesn't work that way. Yes, there are many types of RPGs. Yes, they are sometimes categorized together. However, they all are definitely RPGs. That is just not true with your "broadly defined adventure-game genre".
I will admit one thing. The classic, plain adventure genre is fading and is not nearly as strong as it once was. That weakness led to the rise of the Action-Adventure game. Action-Adventure games are now very, very common, and Adventure games are uncommon. On PC, this hasn't led to action-adventure games being all called adventures... it led to the action genre becoming one of the most dominant on the PC (along with strategy games as the biggest on the PC). Adventure games, however, are still adventure games. Tomb Raider or Indiana Jones don't compete for adventure game of the year... generally they fit better in action game of the year, given how action-adventure doesn't have its own category. Which, BTW, it should for consoles, given how few real adventure games there are on them and how many action-adventures or rpg-adventures that get shoved into the "adventure" category and don't fit it, for categorizing or awards purposes.
Quote: What you are doing is trying to find out which one deserves the name "adventure game", which is absurd.
Nope, I'm trying to defend a struggling and embattled genre from being swallowed up by related- but not the same- genres that are now much bigger and more powerful.
Quote: They are two different kinds of adventure games.
There is one kind, and a lot of offshoots that change that genre so much that they are, in fact, other genres that usually fit much better in another genre than the adventure one. Zelda sure isn't much like any adventure game I've ever played... its not meant to be. Its meant to be a (at its creation) unique game that doesn't exactly fit in any of the established genres, causing, im sure, headaches for people who try to lock it down in one category... given how awards aren't given for "hyphenated" genres.
So... where DOES Zelda belong. Honestly, I don't know. It isn't an RPG, an Adventure game, or an Action game... it doesn't fit anywhere. Genre-bending games like it have that problem... and the solution isn't easy. You've got to put it in some genre which really doesn't fit it. That's what happened to Zelda, shoved into either the Adventure or RPG genres, depending who you ask when.
(from the next post, sorry if I repeat some of what I say above, but I can't help it...)
Quote: The term "adventure game" is very broad, which is why I find it so funny that ABF is trying to claim it for his favorite kind of adventure game, as if it were some sort of medal. And what will come of this? Is everyone going to have to stop calling Zelda an adventure game?
Repeating yourself, I see... Well, while the adventure game genre is broad, like any genre, it does have some rules that make games only borderline games in the genre at best, depending, usually, on who you ask. I just can't see how Zelda would even approach that line (Look at Diablo. I think its an Action-RPG... thats the genre its in. People can say it isn't an RPG, but it really is... watered down from the RPGs like Might & Magic or Baldur's Gate? Sure! But its still an RPG.) Zelda doesn't come even near close enough to being an adventure game to fit there... it has a few, vauge things in common with the genre, but not a whole lot unless you take the Adventure genre to be as broad as you said the RPG one wasn't (you know, when you said that Mario Sunshine wasn't an RPG.)... it just doesn't have many adventure-game features in it! If anything, its more like an Action-RPG... in Zelda, the action parts are very action-oriented. Much like an action game... with some RPG influences. Nothing at all like an adventure game. The puzzles are the same... much deeper than an action game, absolutely, and in many ways not a RPG (though, IMO, clearly strongly influenced by them), but NOT like any adventure game IVE ever played! I don't see how you see a huge connection here... well, maybe you don't and just want Zelda to be its own seperate kind of adventure game. You've said that. Sorry, that doesn't work, as I think I've said now THREE TIMES, at least. Real adventure games DO EXIST ON CONSOLES!!! I don't want to repeat myself, but you really seem to ignore most everything I say so I'm forced to. THEY ARE ON CONSOLES TOO. Not many of them, but they are there. And consoles also have some games that are MUCH closer to adventure games than Zelda... I don't know offhand, but I know that consoles have some games that could try to claim adventure status. Most aren't, but there are much better candidates than Zelda out there. I LOVE Zelda games, but don't see how they have much of anything to do with the adventure genre.
Hmm. This post WAS very long... but worth it. I wanted to try to refute pretty much all of your points in that post. Still, it probably is a bit hard to read. When you combine a lot of 'stream-of-conciousness' typing with some attempts to go back and add stuff in later to flesh out my rebuttals of many points, I'm sure it isn't a very well written or organized post... especially at this length. But it took me a long time to write this much, and redoing the whole thing for readability and the removal of repetition would take way too long.
Oh, and sorry OB1, but the way you argue, it leaves almost no room to be nice... I try, but it is impossible when you are the way you are...
Andy Kaufman? Just because I harmlessly and jokingly call someone a little name once in a great while means that I'm trying to be like Andy Kaufman? I don't even know much about the guy aside from the fact that he used to wrestle women and that Jim Carrey played him in a movie.
I actually did establish the fact that the Atari game "Adventure" came out before any PC graphic adventures, although now that I think about it I may have just mentioned the exact date of its release to Hudson on msn. I forget. We already moved this conversation from one forum to another, so I don't know who said what to whom and where they said it.
And I was joking about that command prompt comment. But you can't seriously put those text based games in the same category as computer and video games. There is a line drawn, you sorry son of a bitch (you see? I kid! ... ah forget about it, you big baby). One side has the likes of Mario and Doom while the other side has games such as Dungeons and Dragons, text-based PC adventures, and connect four.
1) Read my long post. It'll take a while but I dont want it to be ignored... it took a while...
2) Who is Andy Kaufman?
3) It makes no sense at all to say a PC game is not a PC game... Sure, Zork 1-3 are text adventures, and Zork: Grand Inquisitor is a graphic adventure. However, both games are very, very similar and denying that they are in the same genre is bizarre and nonsensical... what'll you do next, say that a bike isn't a form of wheeled transportation because it doesn't have a engine? Huh?
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Before we start, one prediction. OB1 will either ignore almost every point I make, or only respond to the points I make that he can "refute" (with "facts" that are either wrong or are opinions). As usual... and likely more likely when the post is long, like this one will be.
Do you have any idea how many stupidly long posts like these I've had to reply to during my long stay at Tendo City? Far more than you could reply to in a lifetime, my boy.
Quote:"Arguing" with OB1 gets really tiresome fast and is pointless. He will 1) never change his mind, no matter how many times he has been proven to be wrong; 2) insult you, which just makes him look stupid (colored by my personal opinions against swearing); 3) argue forever based on often flawed hypotheses that he takes as truths. Etc. Its annoying.
Uh-huh. Sounds like someone I know that goes by the name of a certain F-Zero character.
Quote:Oh come ON! Sure, I overall prefer PC games... but do you honestly think I dislike console games? I like them! Nintendo games are a lot of fun. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't be here, I'd be at a PC board. DO you think I like my favorite adventure game (that would be Grim Fandango) more than Zelda: OoT? Well, NO. Its close (both are in my top 10), but Zelda is definitely several notches higher... OoT is #3 on my best ever list, actually, right after Warcraft III and Starcraft.
I was kidding.
Quote:READ MY POSTS! I DO A LOT MORE THAN THAT! Better yet, click the links that prove my points!
Ugh, this is so tiresome. I'll do it this one last time.
Quote:This is a case in point. OB1, you have not come even CLOSE to "proving" that console action-adventure games were first. Actually, all you have done is said "console ones were first!" while ignoring the large amount of evidence, with links, that I've provided... you CANNOT deny that Adventure came out in 1972 and was a ADVENTURE GAME. If you deny that, you are saying that a game isn't a game... wait, you did that. Dislike a game/genre all you want... but don't deny its a genre or a game! That is just dumb and so blatantly wrong that arguing it is completely pointeless.
Wait, you mean your text-based adventure games? If you put those in the same category as regular PC and console games then you've proven how ignorant you are. You don't
seriously consider those computer games, do you?
Quote:You also can't deny that Mystery House, the first graphic adventure, came out in 1980, WELL BEFORE ANY CONSOLE ACTION-ADVENTURE GAME. Or any other kind of console adventurish game. Oh, you can try... you just will be in the same place you are in now: with assertions you make that the facts prove wrong. Way to go.
Um.. "Adventure" for the Atari 2600 came out in
1978, two years before your PC "adventure" game. I've already stated this fact.
Quote:Oh... and if you think Zelda is an advenure game, you're saying Tomb Raider is one too... or Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine, or a multitude of other Action-Adventures. None of them are. Fine, lets look at Zelda puzzles and quests. Lets see.. there's 'get key/item' (standard game puzzle, any genre); 'retrieve item for me (FedEx)' - standard RPG genre quest; and many puzzles using your weapons to activate things... 'jump over pit', 'use hookshot to cross thing', and the very common jumping puzzle, often with a timed element you activate somehow.
Wow, you've described Zelda to a "t"! Tell me more!
Quote:Are these, or other Zelda puzzles, really representative of an adventure game? No. Adventure games do use inventory puzzles, true, but not in the way Zelda does... Zelda does its inventory puzzles in the style of an RPG or Action-Adventure game, not a Adventure game.
Because... you say so? So are we going by real-world facts or Black Falcon "facts"?
Quote:Then, of course, theres combat. One hallmark of the adventure genre is that in almost every single adventure game, there is no combat at all. A few are exceptions, as I have said before, but one of those (Monkey Island 3) had it optional, while others like The Last Express, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, and Full Throttle were considered as abnormal adventure games for including such large action elements... Full Throttle in some ways might even be considered a action-adventure. Same with Indy Fate's Fists path. Maybe not, because of the rest of the game clearly being a adventure game, but possibly. Zelda? It has LOTS of Action/RPG-style combat... LOTS. Also, while it definitely has lots of puzzles, they aren't generally the type you see in adventure games... they are the kind found in RPGs, action games, and action-adventure games, not adventure games. Given all of this, I just can't see any way Zelda is an adventure game.
That's because you are defining Zelda by
your definition of the genre. I could say that pong is an extreme sports game and that since in Tony Hawk there is no ball bouncing between two paddles it
cannot therefor be an extreme sports game! Of course this all makes logical sense to you; you're using your own magical encyclopedia of misinformation!
Quote:Well, in the loosest possible definition, it is... but yeah, when you use the definition of RPG as any game that calls itsself and RPG uses it, no, Mario isn't... it doesn't fit what the genre of RPG "really" is.
Exactly. You can't define a genre simply by its name. You define it by comparing it to the first game that defined the genre that it was based off of or resembles to a certain extent, which in this case is the Atari 2600 game "Adventure"...
released in 1978.
Quote:One more thing about Zelda... its interesting that you call it an adventure game, because usually people erroneously refer to it as an RPG, not an Adventure... its no more a Adventure than it is an RPG-- it is influenced somewhat by the genre (less so than it was by RPGs, though, by any measure I can see), but isn't in it. It doesn't fit the real genre definition of either.
It's barely has any RPG elements. You're the only person that has called it an RPG.
Quote:Let me guess. You will now say that Zelda created some "console adventure game" genre which consists of Action-Adventure and Action-RPG-Adventure (yes, I do believe Zelda really does have a big RPG part in it...) games... either that or what you said most recently -- . That really doesn't work that way. Yes, there are many types of RPGs. Yes, they are sometimes categorized together. However, they all are definitely RPGs. That is just not true with your "broadly defined adventure-game genre".
*sigh* Do you even read the posts here? I made a post several hours ago about the first adventure game called "Adventure", which came out in 1978.
Quote:I will admit one thing. The classic, plain adventure genre is fading and is not nearly as strong as it once was. That weakness led to the rise of the Action-Adventure game. Action-Adventure games are now very, very common, and Adventure games are uncommon. On PC, this hasn't led to action-adventure games being all called adventures... it led to the action genre becoming one of the most dominant on the PC (along with strategy games as the biggest on the PC). Adventure games, however, are still adventure games. Tomb Raider or Indiana Jones don't compete for adventure game of the year... generally they fit better in action game of the year, given how action-adventure doesn't have its own category. Which, BTW, it should for consoles, given how few real adventure games there are on them and how many action-adventures or rpg-adventures that get shoved into the "adventure" category and don't fit it, for categorizing or awards purposes.
Nope, I'm trying to defend a struggling and embattled genre from being swallowed up by related- but not the same- genres that are now much bigger and more powerful. There is one kind, and a lot of offshoots that change that genre so much that they are, in fact, other genres that usually fit much better in another genre than the adventure one. Zelda sure isn't much like any adventure game I've ever played... its not meant to be. Its meant to be a (at its creation) unique game that doesn't exactly fit in any of the established genres, causing, im sure, headaches for people who try to lock it down in one category... given how awards aren't given for "hyphenated" genres.
[quote]
What you're trying to do is turn something very simple into something unecessarily complicated.
[quote]So... where DOES Zelda belong. Honestly, I don't know. It isn't an RPG, an Adventure game, or an Action game... it doesn't fit anywhere. Genre-bending games like it have that problem... and the solution isn't easy. You've got to put it in some genre which really doesn't fit it. That's what happened to Zelda, shoved into either the Adventure or RPG genres, depending who you ask when.
It's actually a lot like the first Adventure game (Adventure), which [i]is why people call it an adventure or action-adventure game[/b].
Quote:(from the next post, sorry if I repeat some of what I say above, but I can't help it...)
Repeating yourself, I see... Well, while the adventure game genre is broad, like any genre, it does have some rules that make games only borderline games in the genre at best, depending, usually, on who you ask. I just can't see how Zelda would even approach that line (Look at Diablo. I think its an Action-RPG... thats the genre its in. People can say it isn't an RPG, but it really is... watered down from the RPGs like Might & Magic or Baldur's Gate? Sure! But its still an RPG.) Zelda doesn't come even near close enough to being an adventure game to fit there... it has a few, vauge things in common with the genre, but not a whole lot unless you take the Adventure genre to be as broad as you said the RPG one wasn't (you know, when you said that Mario Sunshine wasn't an RPG.)... it just doesn't have many adventure-game features in it! If anything, its more like an Action-RPG... in Zelda, the action parts are very action-oriented. Much like an action game... with some RPG influences. Nothing at all like an adventure game. The puzzles are the same... much deeper than an action game, absolutely, and in many ways not a RPG (though, IMO, clearly strongly influenced by them), but NOT like any adventure game IVE ever played! I don't see how you see a huge connection here... well, maybe you don't and just want Zelda to be its own seperate kind of adventure game. You've said that. Sorry, that doesn't work, as I think I've said now THREE TIMES, at least. Real adventure games DO EXIST ON CONSOLES!!! I don't want to repeat myself, but you really seem to ignore most everything I say so I'm forced to. THEY ARE ON CONSOLES TOO. Not many of them, but they are there. And consoles also have some games that are MUCH closer to adventure games than Zelda... I don't know offhand, but I know that consoles have some games that could try to claim adventure status. Most aren't, but there are much better candidates than Zelda out there. I LOVE Zelda games, but don't see how they have much of anything to do with the adventure genre.
Like I said before, you are basing your whole argument on the simple assumption that your definition of the genre is the correct one.
Quote:Hmm. This post WAS very long... but worth it. I wanted to try to refute pretty much all of your points in that post. Still, it probably is a bit hard to read. When you combine a lot of 'stream-of-conciousness' typing with some attempts to go back and add stuff in later to flesh out my rebuttals of many points, I'm sure it isn't a very well written or organized post... especially at this length. But it took me a long time to write this much, and redoing the whole thing for readability and the removal of repetition would take way too long.
Oh, and sorry OB1, but the way you argue, it leaves almost no room to be nice... I try, but it is impossible when you are the way you are... [/B]
Hahaha, I bring out the fighter in people. Seriously though, this is an inane topic, but I'm not going to back off. I have to fight for the man that created the adventure genre, I
refuse to let those graphic adventure games take over the genre that he spent months (I guess) creating!!
I will defend... whatever his name is... until the bitter end!!!
BTW here's the boxart for "adventure":
![[Image: adv_box.jpg]](http://www.warrenrobinett.com/adventure/adv_box.jpg)
Oh and if I've made any typos or grammatical errors, don't mind them. It's late and I'm tired.
Quote:Like I said before, you are basing your whole argument on the simple assumption that your definition of the genre is the correct one.
If I'm basing my whole argument on the idea that an adventure game is an adventure game as the genre was defined by Adventure/Colossal Cave (the text based game, not that Atari game), then you are doing exactly the same thing with yours... which is that text-based adventure games aren't PC games.
Quote:Wait, you mean your text-based adventure games? If you put those in the same category as regular PC and console games then you've proven how ignorant you are. You don't seriously consider those computer games, do you?
I honestly can't understand any reasoning at all that can begin to explain that position. They are games. Just as much as any electronic games are. On the PC (and other systems). Which involve adventure game gameplay-- item collection, puzzle solving, wandering around a world, no combat (well, kind of tough to do in text, i'd say), etc... as I said, Zork 1 and Zork Grand Inquisitor are really similar games... definitely without quesion in the same genre. Text based adventure games are definitely a simpler type of game... they are also known as "interactive fiction", by the way. However, they are as much PC/video games as any other type of games is... I don't think I've seen someone try to say that a game is not a game before, and it makes no sense! How in the world do you justify a position based on the hypothesis that pc games aren't pc games, but are board games? I don't get it... that would be like saying that D&D PC games aren't PC games because they are based on a text board game, which is absurd... as is your position is. I would say more, but trying to come up with something to say about such a completely ridiculous idea is pretty hard. You base all of your case on the idea that a whole half of a genre doesn't exist... and its a absurd position. I really hope you don't actually believe that...
Quote:Uh-huh. Sounds like someone I know that goes by the name of a certain F-Zero character.
Um, F-Zero? I think you know it comes from Legos (as well as the fact that falcons are my favorite kind of birds, but Legos were where I got it)...
Anyway, no. I would change my mind, if someone showed that I was wrong... you haven't shown you do that when you are wrong...
Quote:Wow, you've described Zelda to a "t"! Tell me more!
Yeah, I know its not a good description of Zelda puzzles... but I think it still gets the point across that Zelda puzzles have very little to do with the puzzles of an adventure game...
Quote:Because... you say so? So are we going by real-world facts or Black Falcon "facts"?
Nope, by the gameplay ideas that define the genre... the genre of adventure games. Which you say don't define the genre at all, but I say do because they always have in the past and I see no reason why they'd suddenly be declared not to exist anymore just because other games that follow very different rules claim the same genre (but really are in a different one, despite what you may say... they are action/adventure/sometimes rpgs! Graphic/Text adventures fit in no genre others than Adventure...)
Quote:That's because you are defining Zelda by your definition of the genre. I could say that pong is an extreme sports game and that since in Tony Hawk there is no ball bouncing between two paddles it cannot therefor be an extreme sports game! Of course this all makes logical sense to you; you're using your own magical encyclopedia of misinformation!
Oh come on... that is a dumb example. The Extreme Sports genre didn't exist until a couple of years ago, so obviously Pong isn't an extreme sports game... or any kind of sports game... while the situation here is completely different... Even when interpeted the way you want, it still doesn't work... because those two games play so differently that obviously they can't both be in the same genre. And since Pong isn't even a sports game... the situation with Zelda and Adventure games is similar, actually, if not as dramatic. :)
Quote:Atari 2600 game "Adventure"... released in 1978.
I read this whole thread, definitely, and don't remember this game being mentioned before your post after my big post here, and there it doesn't have a date. What is this game? I don't think I've heard of it before...
Anyway, it didn't define the adventure genre because that was created 6 years earlier with Adventure for the PDP-1. The text adventure game, which I have a PC port of on my computer. It (the Atari game) may have created the action-adventure genre, I don't know anything about it except what you said here.
Quote: this is an inane topic, but I'm not going to back off. I have to fight for the man that created the adventure genre, I refuse to let those graphic adventure games take over the genre that he spent months (I guess) creating!! I will defend... whatever his name is... until the bitter end!!!
Haha, yeah, "seriously"... :)
Anyway, I have to defend the adventure genre for a simple reason. It is struggling. The genre has been in severe decline for years now, and currently barely exists in its standard, unaltered form. Most games sort of in the genre now are hyphenated and include a lot more action... and its one of my favorite genres, so I've got to try to keep its definiton what it always has been despite the evergrowing pressure of action-adventure games to intrude into it by claiming to have replaced "old" adventure games with their new, less adventury elements... Not just to preserve the memory of the genre's good days, but also for the future... adventure must live on! They are so close to being dead as it is, its awful seeing how every year the genre seems to develop more and more into some bland, generic genre that includes almost anything developers want to claim is an "adventure"...
:( :bummed: :(
Poor Sierra... Poor Lucasarts adventure game division... :( :(
edit: oh, one last thing. repeating: anyone know who Andy Kaufman is? DJ?
You know who Tom Green is? Well, Andy Kaufman was him, but far more extreme. He did it all to show the world not to take themselves so seriously, and Tom just copied him. Remember how Tom Green pretended he got engaged to some actor, and she just sorta dumped him during Saturday Night Live? Andy did that ALL THE TIME. The wrestling thing was all a show put on by him. He liked everyone hating him for it. He thought it was the most hilarious thing in the world that they would actually be so willing to think he actually hated women and the south. He also purposly screwed up his lines on a late night show, getting the other comedians there very upset, but that's what he wanted. He also got in some huge fight with a real wrestler, Lawler something or other, and threw coffee while cussing at him on a late show. Of course, the host and the audience thought it was real, but it was all an act with that wrestler and Andy. He once took an entire audience out for milk and cookies after a comedy show as well. Basically, Tom Green is, or was (haven't heard of him in a long time), living in Andy's shadow hoping to become like him.
Zelda is a shooter. The end.
My nails are pretty and black. :D
Woah woah woah woah WOAH!
Dark Jaguar, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
How could you even BEGIN to compare the unmitigated GENIUS that is Andy Kaufman to Tom Green??
While you're at it, how about you get some facts about his life from something OTHER than Man on the Moon?
Tom Green is a practical joker who has no shame about making a fool of himself. This has been done COUNTLESS times by countless other comedians. There is no craft, wit or intelligence required. Walk up to cow... make sure the cameras are on..then jerk the cow off. That's Tom Green. A clown, and a dirty one at that.
I guess every person who gets drunk and farts in public is "living in Andy's shadow"? Right?
OB1, You're a twit. Text Adventures are computer games just like any other. You can't just disclaim huge facets of truth, then claim yourself to be omniscient. They were electronic, they had goals, tasks, story, puzzles, actions and reactions, and they were FUN. It has EVERYTHING required for a game, the only thing missing is the visual formation of pixels into definable images. You had to use some semblence of imagination
Oh, and ABF, stop comparing Zelda to RPG's.
Someone in this forum has got me extremely pissed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait, you mean your text-based adventure games? If you put those in the same category as regular PC and console games then you've proven how ignorant you are. You don't seriously consider those computer games, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OB1, you are the ignorant one. If it weren't for text-based games then you wouldn't have these high graphics games that you have today. Interactive fiction defined modern computer games and many people still play them to this day. MUDs and MUSHs are still active, and Im envolved in a few of them. Get rid of the graphics on any game and you've got a text adventure. Think of it this way: Windows is a graphical interface for DOS; Modern PC and Console games are graphical interfaces for text adventures. If you had any programming experience, you would see my point, but you probably won't.
Oh, and I consider Zelda an RPG, just not an RPG that most of you are fimiliar with. I have been into DnD and other RPGs for a good part of my life and I can tell you that, while it doesn't have ALL the part of an RPG, it has alot of them. It has the main quests and even side quests (the hidden caves where you can gamble, or the ones that have either a choice of a heart container or medicine.) Alot of you are comparing Zelda to better known RPG's like FF and DnD. But if you break it down to its simplistic parts, you will find it has alot more RPG elements than you might realize.
Quote:Originally posted by Nick Burns
Someone in this forum has got me extremely pissed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait, you mean your text-based adventure games? If you put those in the same category as regular PC and console games then you've proven how ignorant you are. You don't seriously consider those computer games, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OB1, you are the ignorant one. If it weren't for text-based games then you wouldn't have these high graphics games that you have today. Interactive fiction defined modern computer games and many people still play them to this day. MUDs and MUSHs are still active, and Im envolved in a few of them. Get rid of the graphics on any game and you've got a text adventure. Think of it this way: Windows is a graphical interface for DOS; Modern PC and Console games are graphical interfaces for text adventures. If you had any programming experience, you would see my point, but you probably won't.
Oh, and I consider Zelda an RPG, just not an RPG that most of you are fimiliar with. I have been into DnD and other RPGs for a good part of my life and I can tell you that, while it doesn't have ALL the part of an RPG, it has alot of them. It has the main quests and even side quests (the hidden caves where you can gamble, or the ones that have either a choice of a heart container or medicine.) Alot of you are comparing Zelda to better known RPG's like FF and DnD. But if you break it down to its simplistic parts, you will find it has alot more RPG elements than you might realize.
There may be a few 'simplistic' RPG elements, but nothing definable, nor elements that are found exclusively in RPG's.
Once Zelda has selectable characters, statistical levelling up, and mathematical battle/magic systems, I'll admit it to being an Action/RPG.
PH, you just proved my point of comparing Zelda to the better known RPGs.
.....
The better known RPG's?
Dungeons and Dragons IS the RPG. And the game that all other RPG's are defined as (Unless I'm mistaken and there were other RPG's Board Games before it, but I'm using it as definition as it is the popular knowledge. And I'm sure any previous RPG BG's have the same foundations).
If a game does resemble DnD it is not an RPG.
Quote:Originally posted by Private Hudson
If a game does resemble DnD it is [b]not an RPG. [/B]
I'm gonna take it you meant this:
If a game doesn't resemble DnD it is not an RPG?
I'm not gonna sit here and type to a bunch of people who think they're right. I told you what I thought, and unless some new topic comes up, I'm gonna leave this alone.
Yes, that's what I meant.
And you can't change the way a genre is defined. The definable (exlusive) elements for a genre are what is needed in a game to be classified as that genre.
Modern RPG's are defined by their board game predecessors which had several key elements (most of which have already been listed). If a game doesn't have these key elements, it does not fit into the definition of that genre.
You can call Zelda an RPG based on it's side-quests and choices all you want, but you are mistaken.
:)
I think the issue of how dumb it is for OB1 to even try to say that text based adventures aren't computer games has been discussed enough.
Anyway, Zelda as an RPG. While it admittedly doesn't have some of the major parts of the RPG genre, like mathematical battle systems or statistical levelling up, it does have things that are definitely derived from RPGs, just made simpler... like the levelling up system of hearts... the battle system though, of course, is a lot like a topdown action game.
Hmm... what exactly DOES make a game an RPG. Yes, I'd certainly agree that D&D is the foundation of the genre. Its grown a lot (in variety) since then, but D&D is still one of the major RPG systems... anyway, things that make an RPG.
Character Selection. Not required for an RPG. While selectable/editable characters is a feature that often shows up, it isn't always present, and RPGs without it are still RPGs. OK, so most RPGs do have some form of either character selection or customization (like Planescape Torment. You can't choose your main character, and since there are only like 7 or so other people who can join your party and you have a party of 6 you don't alter your main party much, you can choose if your main guy will be a fighter, thief, or mage... but still, it is a RPG with less customization that usual (for a D&D RPG), but still a RPG), but IMO anyway that isnt always completely necessary.
Mathematical battle system and statistical levelling up, admittedly, do show up in about all RPGs. Zelda does not have them, and that does definitely help (along with its style of battles) make it not an RPG... but even so, I'd say the influence is clear, given how Zelda has 'levelling up' with hearts. While some action games do do that, most to all don't do it to the extent Zelda does... I'd say it (and the weapons, which really also are part of the 'levelling up' thing in the game) is RPG influence...
How about the quests? RPGs have to have lots of quests... Zelda sure has that part of the RPG genre in it... and more like RPG type quests, not action or adventure type ones... it has RPG-type main and side quests.
I'm not sure exactly what else is in an RPG... but I think that Zelda does have strong influence from RPGs. Not enough to make it an RPG, but definintely enough to call it a ____-RPG.
I actually haven't seen that movie yet, though I want to. I got all that from a biographical special on his life. I guess the movie watched the same thing if some of what I said was in there.
Anyway, I wasn't saying they were on the same level, in fact I was insulting TG for being a lesser version of AK.
I'm sorry, but you're all complete morons if you consider those text-based PC games to be in the same category as Pong or Doom. Yes they
are a certain
type of game, but not the same kind as the ones we're used to talking about. Yes there are puzzles and things to manipulate, but you oly get descriptions of these actions rather than images. Are "Choose your own adventure" e-books considered to be computer games now?
No!
Let me show you the definition of a video game, according to dictionary.com:
Quote:video game
n.
An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen.
Did you read that? The terms computer and video games are interchangable, so this definition applies to PC games as well. And anyone that tries to refute this is a sad, delusional little man that can't admit when he's wrong.
I will not argue the fact that text adventure games aren't games anymore. It is just too absurd to even consider continuing. They are games, by any possible way I can describe games. Your saying that they are like Choose Your Own Adventure books proves your ignorance about the genre... I seriously doubt that you have played any text adventure games for any significant amount of time at all if you can even begin to state such a ridiculous opinion.
If you ever play them someday (doubtful, given your stated opinions of them, clearly not based on any facts), you'd see that they play VERY similarly to a graphical adventure game, but with text describing the graphics. The two types of games really aren't that different... as 'graphical' adventure games with textbar interfaces, like all the early Sierra adventure games (or the Hugo adventure games, or many others, including the relatively recent The Space Bar) prove. Those games would work almost as well as text-only games... not as well, but close in most aspects. They are the same exact genre -- adventure games, whether for PC or consoles. Saying they are not games... and DEFENDING such an ignorant position?
I agree with Nick Burns... you are ignorant and further argument is completely pointless, as you will state more "reasons" why text adventure games aren't games. How in the world can you say a game with no graphics isn't a game? I'd say the text is all that you need... it may not be graphics, but I personally think that text is a form of display on the screen, and text interface games can have just as much depth as games with other forms of control... more frusteration, maybe, for having to remember or guess commands, but that doesn't affect the fact they are games even slightly... though you will disagree with some more bizarre 'facts' about how they aren't games, I'm sure. And further prove how disconnected from reality your views are.
Oh, and I'd say text is images. A diffrent form of image, but still a image.
I really hope you aren't seriously defending that position, but the longer you defend it, the more it looks like you truly are... and that is very, very sad.
:joysitck:
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Oh, and I'd say text is images. A diffrent form of image, but still a image.
Good Point ABF
Now that you brought that up, I was forced to search for a page that I found before:
Main site:
http://webpages.mr.net/bobz/ttyquake/
Screenshots:
http://webpages.mr.net/bobz/ttyquake/ss/
Hmmmmmmmmm........
*wants to see how OB1 gets himself out of this one*
:evil: :D :evil:
That's really funny... :) I'd love to see it in action, but I don't have Quake.
Oh, and I see no way for OB1 to get out of this one. I predict he either refuses to change his mind until noone posts about it anymore, or he just stops replying knowing that he can't win with is ridiculous case.
Get out of
what?? I've just proven to you fools that text-based games are
not video games! That Quake thing looks cool, but it doesn't help your argument at all.
Quote:If you ever play them someday (doubtful, given your stated opinions of them, clearly not based on any facts), you'd see that they play VERY similarly to a graphical adventure game, but with text describing the graphics.
You just proved my point right there! Haha!
You have text describing the "graphics"!!
This topic is going nowhere. I have clearly explained my side of this argument and I've even used proof to back myself up. You have done nothing but make false claims and contradictions at every turn, so I now realize that no matter how wrong you are you will never admit defeat. This is very, very sad.
The fact you actually seem to believe what you are saying is very, very sad. Really. Its sad when someone can't appreciate something like this... poor OB1. Well, maybe not. Youre the one attempting to back up absurd claims. Oh well... I guess this is just more proof that people will believe anything once they get their mind onto it...
Oh, and if you call that proof, then your definition of proof is very... creative...
Dictionary.com isn't exactly the final word on what a game is.
Allow me to look up the word "computer game".
n : a game played against a computer
That's it! By the way, video game is listed as being synonemous, but synonyms aren't always dead on exact same definition words. They just have similar definitions. All video games are computer games, but not all computer games are video games. You pointed that out with your own definition of what it takes to be a video game, which is MANIPULATION of images on the screen. Text adventure games by the way ARE computer games under dictionary.com's definition. Would you like to dispute that definition? If you do, you have to dispute your own definition of video games. Sorry, that's how logic works.
Okay, now you are making me angry here. I just looked up video game to check it, and I have to say, you left out definition number 2! Allow me to post the second definition listed there.
n : a game played against a computer
Ah, I love ctrl+v. Anyway, as you can see, the other definition clearly is exactly the same as a computer game. In this case, they ARE fully interchangeble, and also, text based adventure games ARE video games under definition number 2. You can't argue that we should only use definition number 1 without in effect arguing that the first definition is also invalid in this argument.
You could dispute the individual sources though. You could in fact argue that Princeton University is not a valid source of word definitions, while American Heritage is. I say you COULD do that, and if you somehow won that argument, you would destroy the two definitions I posted without harming your own. However, you won't win that one, because quite honestly, I don't think anyone is going to agree that Princeton University's dictionarial abilities are not valid.
Anyway, then goes how the game plays. To be honest, it IS a lot like a graphic adventure game of the PC style that use a parsar interface. The difference is that you can more directly control movement of the main character. Instead of having to type where they should go, you just use the arrows to direct them there. However, aside from that, EVERYTHING is just a text adventure with some graphics to show what's going on. Text adventures have all the same basic gameplay elements. Instead of using arrow keys, you type in the move command and see if you got killed for doing that :D. Once you find out where you are, you continue trying to find out what to do. You can collect items, like a letter or a knife, and use them, like to cut a rope or to give someone a letter. It's still a grand adventure where you play against the computer (the computer doing one thing, presenting the puzzles to you). Do they stand up to today's games? Likely no, just like Donkey Kong doesn't. However, they are both classics that were great at the time, and more importantly, they are BOTH games.
To be honest OB1, I can't see how you can claim anything you have said is actually a logical argument. I also fail to see ANY proof of your claims in any posts aside from just stating that it is so. That is not proof by the way. I am however happy to see that you have been obeying my rules of debate :D.
Anyone who follows those rules of yours will make, at best, about as much sense as OB1 does here. That is to say, none at all.
You're right, those text-based adventure games are computer games, since you play them on a computer. However, they are not in the same category as pong or monkey island. Video games are defined by manipulating images on a screen. The first real video game ever made was "Space War!", created by Steve Russell in 1962. What made this program different from everything else, you ask? You were able to manipulate the little dots on the screen. It was the world's first interactive video game. Like you said DJ, all video games are computer games, but not all computer games are video games, which is why this topic is so slippery. Space War is a video game. Mario Bros. is a video game. Monkey Island is a video game. Text-based adventures games are not video games, but they are computer games since they are played on a computer.
Many people misuse the terms computer games, console games, and video games. The term "video game" is the most important one here, and the only reason why we have the words computer games and consoles games is because consoles and PCs have become completely seperate markets, so we needed some terms to help differentiate between the two platforms. The term "video game" has only one meaning, which I already gave to you. Console games (so far) are simply video games for a console. Computer games, however, can be video games or other forms of games being played on a computer. So that's why text-based adventure games are not video games but rather a type of computer game, and should not be confused with the likes of space war or quake.
Wow, we've certainly run this topic through the ground, now haven't we? So much talk over so stupid a topic. It's all ABF's fault. You suck.