The subject to this thread is likely not idea, but I wanted to go up with something to discuss the concept of adventures, and contrast them with games and interactive fiction.
If you have read some of my posts, I ended up speaking of games vs interactive fiction. I have had a feeling there has been way too much focus to produce a Hollwood-like experience, and linear stories, hiring actors and so on. I tried to defend this via games as games. But, I think I likely need to correct myself some and clarify. I believe what I probably should of been trying to describe and defend are adventures and not actually games (although I will defend these).
I had stated that a game involves competition between players where you try to best them. Good games have replayability to them, and you can get more skilled at them. Idea is beating someone and winning.
You also have what is seen as "interactive fiction" which is a form of storyteling (fiction) where a narrator drives the story and players see a story unfold. In these the power of the narrator is key, to drive and control focus. This can work against gameplay to some degree, and undermine player freedom to a certain degree. It does dovetail really well into adventures actually. There is trade-offs between adventures and interactive fiction, and one can push more into the other though. Ok, onto adventures.
I can sum up what an adventure is: It is a simulation being run on the Holodeck of Star Trek: Next Generation. It is an environment players attempt to explore and discover. The player drives the development of a story. If interjected with stronger storytelling and be closer to interactive fiction, or can be more open-ended in nature, and have a weaker story. But the focus here is on gameplay. In this, an adventure can end up adding stat-building and have players have to play the role of a character and be an RPG (or simulate an RPG by commanding a team). And then you can see the tradeoffs in East and West design in how much more an adventure pushes towards interactive fiction (East) or Sandbox (West).
A thing about adventures is that they can have very little story. I would say what is done with Mario and even Zelda fits into this. They are adventures in nature. Mario ends up rehashing the same story over and over, and Zelda ends up having more storytelling. But, in both, there is an adventure to get through, and experience, and escape from one's own uneventful life. It is a safe way to do this, without getting hurt.
Anyhow, that is my take. Just writing here to speak on adventures, and think this is a term I had been looking for to more accurate describe what is normally thought of as videogames. I do also see, with the very nature of adventures, they do lend very much to storytellers wanting to get involved and drive a narrative and tell a story.
Well, please feel free to agree or disagree or mutate.
