Why I Think Adventure is the Best Game Ever

[phitter]

I am wondering why Adventure is so beloved. I remember enjoying it back in the day but it really does not hold my interest nowadays (and especially after playing the Zelda and Final Fantasy titles on the NES and SNES!)

 

Please don't think I am bashing the game but I am just curious why the title is so revered and occupies a consistent top-three position on the top 100. Please help me understand.

 

-phitter

[ATARIPITBULL]

Adventure was my first Atari 2600 game that my mom bought for me a long with my new 2600 system and I loved it a bunch then and is still my #1 Atari game on my top 10 list.

 

[Recycled]

It was so much better than alot of the dreck in the early atari catalogue. Hmmm....let's see what looks better....Basic Math or Adventure!!

 

I didn't own it at the time.....I was intrigued by it though. Don't know why I didn't get it then. I love it today....I play it once every month or two.

[Lord Helmet]

I love the gameplay today as much as I did back then. Plus there are many hacks/sequels that are alot of fun and challenging as well, especailly Adventure 8k, Adventure Plus, and the haunted Adventure games. I enjoyed Adventure II on the Flashback 2 as well.

[Video]

I never reall understood the popularity of it either. It's just, run around, grab a key, use a bridge to get in the castle, game over.....WTF? Oh, you can kill hte giant duck, yeah, but.....uh.....

 

This game is pretty shallow, I'm sure there's a hard mode, or a mode where the map screens are randome or something, but I never had enough intereste to bother with it.

[Jacob Rose]

[...]

This game is pretty shallow, I'm sure there's a hard mode, or a mode where the map screens are randome or something, but I never had enough intereste to bother with it.

 

Just hit "select" once or twice. Game 2 has a much bigger map (and is much harder), and Game 3 places objects randomly (usually winnably, though). If you've never played Game 2, you've never played Adventure. Game 1 is just a tutorial.

Edited October 11, 2006 by Jacob Rose

[rheffera]

Yep i love game 3. Adventure Rocks! That pesky bat! the game actually has depth!

[Red 5]

No 'All of the above'?

 

(minus the negative)

[Robert M]

I am wondering why Adventure is so beloved. I remember enjoying it back in the day but it really does not hold my interest nowadays (and especially after playing the Zelda and Final Fantasy titles on the NES and SNES!)

 

Please don't think I am bashing the game but I am just curious why the title is so revered and occupies a consistent top-three position on the top 100. Please help me understand.

 

-phitter

 

A better question is what is so damn hot about Zelda? I tried to play that "game" and I could not stand it I quit around dungeon 7. The enemies are completely passive moving in semi-random patterns that somtimes bump into the player. The map is just a big dull maze with a couple small surprises. When you clear a room of monsters, they come back a while later, but why. I felt like Agent Smith in the Matrix movies asking Neo "Why? Why go on? Why bother?"

 

Adventure on the other hand is awesome. The dragons and bat will hunt you down. None of that Zelda shit of ducking off the screen to escape the randomly wiggling dudes.

 

In Adventure, the game objects effect each other in real time, even when you are not on the screen with them! If the bat for example is carrying the magnet around, then the magnet is doing its thing as the bat carries it from room to room even if you aren't on the screen with it. There are hardly any games that do that even today. Most games today are just a linear series of triggered events waiting for the player to trip over them. Adventure is a living world. You play as an agent in that world. The computer plays the rest.

 

Would the world of Adventure be more satisfying if it was larger and had more agents and objects? Hell yes, but for a 4K game it pretty damn sweet. Just ducky, in my book.

 

Cheers!

[Room 34]

I appreciate it purely for the history. I guess it's still a LITTLE bit fun to play (although I prefer the hacks like Adventure II on the Flashback 2). But yeah, it's all about the history, but newer games have definitely done it better (especially Zelda).

 

I should clarify though -- I DON'T think Adventure is the best game ever.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Room 34

[Big Player]

Adventure has great replay value. Game 3 is different every time with random placement of all the objects and dragons.

[Feralstorm]

I wouldn't call it the best EVAR, but I find it a lot more fun than I did in my kid days, in part for it's rather free-form nature, especially on game 3.

 

Part of the fun for me is, when I can beat the game on 3 pretty consistently, I'll start creating new criteria for a "win", such as bringing EVERY object in the game (including all the dragons, bat, and invisible dot) into the home castle for maximum flicker.

[supercat]

I am wondering why Adventure is so beloved. I remember enjoying it back in the day but it really does not hold my interest nowadays (and especially after playing the Zelda and Final Fantasy titles on the NES and SNES!)

 

Some people may think the dragons look like ducks, but they're HUNGRY ducks. Having the hole in the belly to show the swallowed player was a stroke of genius. I'll admit I'm curious why the dragons weren't double-width, but even as they are, they're pretty scary.

[dwh]

It's the gameplay, with the random elements of the bat and dragons coming thru walls from other parts of the kingdom.

Later games were just linear-go here do this, then go there and do that, every single time;the only improvement over Adventure was the save game feature.

[atwwong]

I like the multi-screen aspect of it. My 3 brothers and I would play hide 'n seek and after slaying the dragons, 3 of us would chose an object and hide somewhere in the game. Then we would hit the reset switch and the 4th would have to look for the rest of us. Lots of fun if you chose to be the sword and hid in the secret room, and someone was the dot hidden somewhere else, with dragons wildly hunting down the "seeker." Yes, these games would last hours and we were peeved when Dad got mad and shut off the Atari. (Serves us right, we should have been playing outside! ) Oh, that brings back memories.

[accousticguitar]

I enjoyed it when I was young, and I still enjoy it today. The only problem is it's too easy even on level 3. The adventure hack I envision has about 100 rooms with at least half a dozen dragons. I don't care about secret panels or gimmicks; I am looking for more of a challenge in gameplay. There is an Adventure hack called "Misadventure" that is really promising, but it isn't finished yet. I am waiting for it and for Adventure II to come out. It kind of looks like Christmas for both of them.

[shadow460]

It's an awesome game, but Adventure is finally reaching the end of its lifespan. PArdon me if this has already been said, but Adventure is a wonderful GUI adaptation of a popular text game. Being all text would have made the challenge higher than it is with a GUI.

 

Adventure remained prominent as a vintage video game even in the light of RPG's like Final Fantasy 7 and Shining Force III. When you get tired of battling hordes of 3D enemies, you could pop the old cart in and play.

Now, though, there's just more to be desired out of a "bedtime" game. Adventure's graphics just don't wind me down quite as well now that characters look like real people. They don't have big heads, and they actually talk instead of squeaking.

 

What would the hero in Adventure say if he/she could talk? Hmm, I'm thinking something you'd have not wanted to admit 50 years ago.

"I'm just square."

 

Ah, THAT'S IT!! I know now why Squaresoft chose their name! They wanted to be named after the best RPG charater of all time--the Square!

Edited October 12, 2006 by shadow460

[vdub_bobby]

A better question is what is so damn hot about Zelda? I tried to play that "game" and I could not stand it I quit around dungeon 7. The enemies are completely passive moving in semi-random patterns that somtimes bump into the player. The map is just a big dull maze with a couple small surprises. When you clear a room of monsters, they come back a while later, but why. I felt like Agent Smith in the Matrix movies asking Neo "Why? Why go on? Why bother?"

To each his own, but complaining about semi-random/passive enemy behavior is a complaint that could be applied to about 95% of the best video games of all time - games like Super Mario Brothers, Metroid, Space Invaders, Centipede, Pitfall!, Pitfall II, Kaboom!, H.E.R.O., etc.

 

Zelda has its drawbacks, you mentioned several; Adventure has its own drawbacks as well - lackluster graphics & sounds and excessive flicker (even for the 2600) come immediately to mind - different strokes for different folks and all that.

 

Personally, I prefer Zelda to Adventure, though I like them both - I feel more drawn into a world with Zelda than with Adventure, and I find Adventure's maze dull!

[Emehr]

I owned the manual before I ever had the game...at least 10 years between the two! In that time it was the number one game that I sought. It's now one of my all-time favorites. I love the simplicity in the game mechanics: one button to rule them all; one item at a time. And the square character leaves more to the imagination. That said, I don't think it's the best game ever (I don't think any game deserves that distinction. Every good game has its place.)

 

I also like the Zelda franchise.

[NE146]

Might as well post this pic again

[Godzilla]

needs an open gut :-) thats a great pic. the knight needs to more square :-)

 

adventure is still great to play to this day. i love the 'virtual world' it achieves. amazing for any time.

[Video]

The enemies are completely passive moving in semi-random patterns that somtimes bump into the player. The map is just a big dull maze with a couple small surprises. When you clear a room of monsters, they come back a while later, but why. I felt like Agent Smith in the Matrix movies asking Neo "Why? Why go on? Why bother?"

 

Adventure on the other hand is awesome. The dragons and bat will hunt you down. None of that Zelda shit of ducking off the screen to escape the randomly wiggling dudes.

 

 

 

Actually 90% of all games otu there are like Zelda, set enemies randomely moving till they hit something.

 

5% ar as you described adventure, the enemies just aim for your characture.

 

And the last 5% will have a combination of both, such as charactures sitting, or moving around randomly, till you get so close, then running after you.

 

But why is Adventure liked so much? I liked Raiders of the lost ark, only slightly (enough that we didn't blow it up as kids for sucking so bad) But even the randome setting isn't very....randome. It's still the same thing, find these objects, stab the dragon/duck/whatever the hell, and get all your crap out to wherever. I do like the Bat stealing shit though, that's just awesome, I don't care what game it is

[rockman_x_2002]

Well I never owned this game back when it was out, nor did my brother (though we did borrow it in the mid-80s for a weekend). While I had played it a few times before, I didn't actually get my own copy of this game until around 2000, so I can't cite nostalgia. I do believe, though, out of the choices listed, the history behind the game as one of the first RPG-style games is very important. But perhaps the reason the game is so well loved is a combination of all these. The game is highly playable, and the simplicity of the graphics on screen requires you as the player to use your imagination rather than relying on eye candy like modern games do. The game has rich history, as stated before, and for many (though not all), there is the nostalgia factor in play as well.

Edited October 12, 2006 by rockman_x_2002

[accousticguitar]

The enemies are completely passive moving in semi-random patterns that somtimes bump into the player. The map is just a big dull maze with a couple small surprises. When you clear a room of monsters, they come back a while later, but why. I felt like Agent Smith in the Matrix movies asking Neo "Why? Why go on? Why bother?"

 

Adventure on the other hand is awesome. The dragons and bat will hunt you down. None of that Zelda shit of ducking off the screen to escape the randomly wiggling dudes.

 

 

But why is Adventure liked so much? I liked Raiders of the lost ark, only slightly (enough that we didn't blow it up as kids for sucking so bad) But even the randome setting isn't very....randome. It's still the same thing, find these objects, stab the dragon/duck/whatever the hell, and get all your crap out to wherever. I do like the Bat stealing shit though, that's just awesome, I don't care what game it is

 

The only drawback I find with Adventure is that the world is too small. It needs to be at least 3 times bigger with more dragons to patrol the larger area. It really needed game 4 and game 5 (if not more).

[NE146]

The only drawback I find with Adventure is that the world is too small. It needs to be at least 3 times bigger with more dragons to patrol the larger area. It really needed game 4 and game 5 (if not more).

 

By chance did you never hear of "Indenture" by Craig Pell? Games 4 or 5 on that outta give you plenty of rooms. Way more than 3 times the size that's for sure

 

Here it is http://www.dosgamesonline.com/index/game/Indenture/360/

 

Lots of old discussions on it on these forums as well if you do a search.