Why I Think Adventure is the Best Game Ever

[accousticguitar]

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.

 

I played it a little. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed like once you got to the extra mazes, the game play stopped. In other words, no dragons were there to chase you, and no bat to steal things, etc. I actually thought the world was too big on indenture. It took too long to get from one end of the maze to the other. I had the same complaint about Adventure II on the flashback. The map I envision for Adventure looks like a wheel with spokes. It would take no more than 20 rooms to get from the center of the map (the gold castle) to the outside of the wheel (the tire). Once there, you might possibly be able to warp to another part of the map (to another part of the tire on a different spoke). The game play would not stop on any portion of the map. There would be encounters with dragons, bats, etc. everywhere. There wouldn't be any secret barriers to cross either. Every portion of the kingdom would be accessible. There would be about 100 rooms total. This is my vision of games 4 and 5.

[Shaggy the Atarian]

I voted for playbility. I love how this (and many classic Atari titles) have the different modes to choose and chosing the games where things are randomized spices it up. Finding the little things like the easter egg is cool but I just like putting it on the hardest game mode and seeing how fast I can grab the chalice. I also like the dragons as an enemy - yes games like Zelda have many enemies and bosses but having just the dragons as a relentless and poweful foe makes for some fun and sometimes challenging gameplay. I admit that now I like Adventure II more as it has bigger maps, more to do but it still maintains the feel of the original. I really am looking forward to the sequel on the 5200.

[JacobZu7zu7]

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.

 

 

I used to think exactly this way... sometimes I still do, but I forced myself to play game 3

and I been liking Adventure more now.. and I think its decent!!

I hope this will continue.

I should also try game 2.

[Paranoid]

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

 

For someone claiming to need help to understand, your questions show a remarkable understanding of the reasons why people still enjoy Adventure. I'd say each of your first three answers in the poll, as well as the last one, are reasons why I enjoy the game, to this day. It is also right up there with Demon Attack as a must-have title for the 2600.

 

But I can even see why GRAPHICS could appeal. I remember as a child, when my memory was vivid and open to the terrible and fantastic, I could vividly *imagine* running through the dark, sandy, underground chambers. The blue hedge maze was a leafy green hedge maze to me. The castles... all of the places were vivid to me. I personally feel that modern games (Especially after Ultima 3) robbed you of this with over complicated graphics that left too little up to the imagination. Ultima IV was the turning point, in my mind. Adventure stands, therefore, as an example of WHY many of us value the 2600 over modern gaming consoles and platforms. The 2600 represents a bridge between television and literature. With modern gaming experiences, it is an interactive movie that paints every picture out for you and really requires very little actual input from the player in order to progress the game, and even less imagination.

[heavy-sixer]

 

But I can even see why GRAPHICS could appeal. I remember as a child, when my memory was vivid and open to the terrible and fantastic, I could vividly *imagine* running through the dark, sandy, underground chambers. The blue hedge maze was a leafy green hedge maze to me. The castles... all of the places were vivid to me. I personally feel that modern games (Especially after Ultima 3) robbed you of this with over complicated graphics that left too little up to the imagination. Ultima IV was the turning point, in my mind. Adventure stands, therefore, as an example of WHY many of us value the 2600 over modern gaming consoles and platforms. The 2600 represents a bridge between television and literature. With modern gaming experiences, it is an interactive movie that paints every picture out for you and really requires very little actual input from the player in order to progress the game, and even less imagination.

 

 

I think you are right on the money with that observation! That is exactly why I've always loved Adventure.

[accousticguitar]

I like it because it's fun to play!

[supercat]

But I can even see why GRAPHICS could appeal. I remember as a child, when my memory was vivid and open to the terrible and fantastic, I could vividly *imagine* running through the dark, sandy, underground chambers.

 

I remember being scared by those dragons, in a way that very few video game monsters scare me. I think it's the hole in the belly. I don't know whether it's a function of imagination, or the 'living death' of being eaten, or what, but they're scary. (Thinking about it, I think the living-death aspect is a big part of it; if the player simply couldn't move at all, getting munched wouldn't seem as bad as when the player can move just a little but is otherwise stuck).

[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

 

For someone claiming to need help to understand, your questions show a remarkable understanding of the reasons why people still enjoy Adventure. I'd say each of your first three answers in the poll, as well as the last one, are reasons why I enjoy the game, to this day. It is also right up there with Demon Attack as a must-have title for the 2600.

 

I guess I was just curious as to the most prominent reason.

 

-phitter

Edited October 15, 2006 by phitter

[Paranoid]

I remember being scared by those dragons, in a way that very few video game monsters scare me. I think it's the hole in the belly. I don't know whether it's a function of imagination, or the 'living death' of being eaten, or what, but they're scary. (Thinking about it, I think the living-death aspect is a big part of it; if the player simply couldn't move at all, getting munched wouldn't seem as bad as when the player can move just a little but is otherwise stuck).

 

Oooh. I think you're onto something there. I remember being disturbed on some deep level by the fact that once you were ate by a dragon, you could still move, but could not ESCAPE. You could even manipulate objects outside of the dragon, even KILLING the dragon from inside. Yet there was no escape... it was final.

 

Oddly enough, I think it was an early concept of unjustified restraint, of oppression of personal liberty, in my 10 year old mind that made this so disturbing. The idea that a powerful thing could swallow you up and prevent you from moving about freely had, even then, what I'd call an Orwellian atmosphere to it in my mind. There was certainly a deeper philosophical and ideological symbolism to your square being caught in the belly of a dragon, at any rate.

 

Interesting.

[mos6507]

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.

 

I played it a little. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed like once you got to the extra mazes, the game play stopped. In other words, no dragons were there to chase you, and no bat to steal things, etc. I actually thought the world was too big on indenture. It took too long to get from one end of the maze to the other. I had the same complaint about Adventure II on the flashback. The map I envision for Adventure looks like a wheel with spokes. It would take no more than 20 rooms to get from the center of the map (the gold castle) to the outside of the wheel (the tire). Once there, you might possibly be able to warp to another part of the map (to another part of the tire on a different spoke). The game play would not stop on any portion of the map. There would be encounters with dragons, bats, etc. everywhere. There wouldn't be any secret barriers to cross either. Every portion of the kingdom would be accessible. There would be about 100 rooms total. This is my vision of games 4 and 5.

 

 

The ability to skip from one zone to another is important with larger worlds. For instance, while Superman doesn't have a huge world, the subways provide an important shortcut. Even then, after you get hit by kryptonite, it's a drag trying to find Lois walking at Kent's speed.

 

Also, the object to rooms ratio in Adventure is about right. When you make it bigger, you must increase the stuff to balance it out. This also means the game has to keep track of more stuff in realtime, which the 2600 has a hard time doing. If you double the size of adventure you really need another bat or other analogous element to keep things randomized at the same interval.

[accousticguitar]

The ability to skip from one zone to another is important with larger worlds. For instance, while Superman doesn't have a huge world, the subways provide an important shortcut. Even then, after you get hit by kryptonite, it's a drag trying to find Lois walking at Kent's speed.

 

Also, the object to rooms ratio in Adventure is about right. When you make it bigger, you must increase the stuff to balance it out. This also means the game has to keep track of more stuff in realtime, which the 2600 has a hard time doing. If you double the size of adventure you really need another bat or other analogous element to keep things randomized at the same interval.

 

I agree. It would need more dragons (perhaps with some of them restricted to certain areas or permanently guarding certain objects) and bats to keep things interesting. This might be beyond the ability of a 2600 like you say. Maybe I need to start learning to program the 800xl (which is something I want to do when I get the time).

[Shannon]

I remember being scared by those dragons, in a way that very few video game monsters scare me. I think it's the hole in the belly. I don't know whether it's a function of imagination, or the 'living death' of being eaten, or what, but they're scary.

 

 

pwn3d

 

Sorry couldn't resist. If you think about it adventure is an exercise in minimalism the sound effects are very minimal. It has an almost isolationist feel to it, like you're all alone or something. The game greatly relies on the imagination.

[accousticguitar]

That's right! No annoying music either

[mos6507]

I agree. It would need more dragons (perhaps with some of them restricted to certain areas or permanently guarding certain objects) and bats to keep things interesting. This might be beyond the ability of a 2600 like you say. Maybe I need to start learning to program the 800xl (which is something I want to do when I get the time).

 

I should also say that only being able to hold one object at a time plays into this too.

 

A larger game needs an inventory system sort of like Indiana Jones. I think the Indy engine has lots of potential for different games (beyond ET and the Swordquest games if you want to consider those as variants).

 

The regular Adventure is small enough that you can juggle objects okay with just the right probability of the bat screwing with whatever you drop. With a larger world it would get annoying having to leave something behind. You'd probably never see it again, or if you could, you wouldn't want to walk so far to go get it back.

[Atarifever]

Because it's incredibly fun. What other reason would anyone need? I can't see how anyone wouldn't find it fun. Personally, I'm hoping for a DS version, with verticle mazes, different stages, more enemies, and the same graphics.

[+doctorclu]

 

But I can even see why GRAPHICS could appeal. I remember as a child, when my memory was vivid and open to the terrible and fantastic, I could vividly *imagine* running through the dark, sandy, underground chambers. The blue hedge maze was a leafy green hedge maze to me. The castles... all of the places were vivid to me. I personally feel that modern games (Especially after Ultima 3) robbed you of this with over complicated graphics that left too little up to the imagination. Ultima IV was the turning point, in my mind. Adventure stands, therefore, as an example of WHY many of us value the 2600 over modern gaming consoles and platforms. The 2600 represents a bridge between television and literature. With modern gaming experiences, it is an interactive movie that paints every picture out for you and really requires very little actual input from the player in order to progress the game, and even less imagination.

 

 

I think you are right on the money with that observation! That is exactly why I've always loved Adventure.

 

Well if that's the case you must have LOVED Raiders of the Lost Ark. I mean there you have a block to represent that, another block to represent that...

 

I used to bash modern gaming and computing, but I am glad that they always work to push the envelope. (Current favorite, Guitar Hero!!) That said, I do like the imagination that the earlier games inspired. I wrote stories based from imaginings based on Joust, Archon, and Star Raiders. They give you so little to work with, the mind gets going, and sometimes it gets carried away and takes on a whole other life and story of it's own.

[Jacob Rose]

The regular Adventure is small enough that you can juggle objects okay with just the right probability of the bat screwing with whatever you drop. With a larger world it would get annoying having to leave something behind. You'd probably never see it again, or if you could, you wouldn't want to walk so far to go get it back.

 

Which is why in Adventure II certain objects do follow you from world to world.

[G.Whiz]

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.

 

I played with that idea too: expanding it for more rooms, menaces, and options. (I may get around to learning how to program when I'm retired...)

 

However, I'm not sure how easy it would be to pull it off. A big part of any game is the "balance" - right number of dragons, right size of map, right number of items, etc. In Adventure, you could be chased by two or three dragons at the same time. just by chance. Challenging, but not impossible to deal with. But if you had six dragons wandering around (for example), and all happened to attack at once, that could get frustrating. Too much frustration leads to bad game play.

 

You could do levels as well, but that upsets the balance too. Essentially, you are creating several different Adventure games, rather than one big one -- which sort of defeats the purpose. You also get into the "accomplish this before that happens" which is popular in some games today, but again gets away from the original intent of wandering without limits.

 

This is just a couple of examples. Adventure is perfectly balanced, which is one of the big reasons it is still popular today. It is necessarily short (due mostly of course to Atari's limitations) but to broaden its scope threatens the balance.

 

Certainly worth the attempt though, and I'd love someone to be able to pull it off!

 

~G

[accousticguitar]

The regular Adventure is small enough that you can juggle objects okay with just the right probability of the bat screwing with whatever you drop. With a larger world it would get annoying having to leave something behind. You'd probably never see it again, or if you could, you wouldn't want to walk so far to go get it back.

 

That is why I would make the map shaped like a wheel. It would not take very long to get from 1 part of the map to any other part, and the warp zones would help too.

[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.

 

I played with that idea too: expanding it for more rooms, menaces, and options. (I may get around to learning how to program when I'm retired...)

 

However, I'm not sure how easy it would be to pull it off. A big part of any game is the "balance" - right number of dragons, right size of map, right number of items, etc. In Adventure, you could be chased by two or three dragons at the same time. just by chance. Challenging, but not impossible to deal with. But if you had six dragons wandering around (for example), and all happened to attack at once, that could get frustrating. Too much frustration leads to bad game play.

 

You could do levels as well, but that upsets the balance too. Essentially, you are creating several different Adventure games, rather than one big one -- which sort of defeats the purpose. You also get into the "accomplish this before that happens" which is popular in some games today, but again gets away from the original intent of wandering without limits.

 

This is just a couple of examples. Adventure is perfectly balanced, which is one of the big reasons it is still popular today. It is necessarily short (due mostly of course to Atari's limitations) but to broaden its scope threatens the balance.

 

Certainly worth the attempt though, and I'd love someone to be able to pull it off!

 

~G

 

That's a good point. I think the balance would have to be achieved by trial and error. Misadventure has hit points on the dragons. You have to stab them many times to get them to die. I didn't like it at first, mostly because it was different than the original game. But after a while, I realized it made the game more challenging. It probably helps the long term playability of the game as well. I have had 5 dragons chasing me at once in Misadventure. It reminds me of the Matrix (when you see an agent, you do as I do, run).

That's what I did!

[HP Atari King of Michigan]

Primitive graphics aside,, it's an addicting game trying to avoid the dragons (ducks) from eating you. I especially like its new sequel Adventure II on the Flashback 2.

[accousticguitar]

If you have an emulator, you should try Misadventure (in 2600 hacks). It has 5 dragons

[bretthorror]

I've never played this game, I'm going to have to give it a shot on my Atari Anthology. Everyone here seems to love it.

[kidnicky]

The "minimalism" (as someone else put it) has always reminded me a lot more of Metroid than Zelda.

Personally,I don't love Adventure. It's a fun game and everything,but it wouldn't even be in my top 50. I like action packed games more than searching around a maze.

I love retro games and all,but I'll never understand the bizarre anti-modern stance some people take. To say a modern game

"requires very little actual input from the player in order to progress the game,...."

Is just completely ridiculous. In Adventure,The Legend of Zelda,and even Grand Theft Auto,you have to complete your objective while battling the enemies. They require exactly the same level of input. If anything,the more modern titles require more input,since you can aquire and use different weapons/items.

You may LIKE Adventure more than GTA,and I would agree with you. But sorry,unless you're referring to Night Trap,Adventure does not take more "actual input from the player to progress" than any newer game.

[supercat]

To say a modern game

"requires very little actual input from the player in order to progress the game,...."

Is just completely ridiculous.

 

Modern game authors face a quandary: if they design the game so that most people can't clear the early levels, people who buy the game won't play most of the game they bought. If most people will be able to clear the early levels, at least given attempts, the challenge becomes one of persistence rather than skill. And if the game allows people to see the later levels without having mastered the earlier ones, then there may not be enough reward to encourage mastery.

 

On the 2600, a game like Asteroids may increase in difficulty beyond the point that most players could handle, but if someone can 'only' make it to the fourth level such a person isn't going to feel they're not getting the whole game they paid for.

 

I really like the approach taken in Millipede. No amount of persistence will allow a player to progress far beyond the point of mastery, but players can skip over most of the time the levels that they've mastered (at least if they don't turn off the machine)