Quote from: droogSome interesting data. I've bolded the films I see as not conforming to the action-movie genre. It's self-refexive, because I'm thinking: "Could you do this film with a straightforward adventure game?" (happy, Settembrini?)

Problem with some of the ones you've bolded /are/ in many cases action/adventure genre (Monsters Inc, is action comedy--you have good guys and bad guys and a chase scene)

Finding Nemo (Classic adventure: Search for lost family member)
Shrek 1  is a spoof of action adventure tropes (especially Disney Movies and Fairy tale "sanitization" ones) Shrek 2 is similar but adds more to the romantic-comedy aspects.

"Action" doesn't mean "lots of guns" or 'car chases' it just means conflict that is resolved often through physical acts. (Chases through doors, smashing into the castle with a giant robo--er gingerbread man..)
Heck Home Alone is in many ways one boy retelling of Magnificent 7 (7 Samurai's descendants.)

And working the other way, which is more to the point of defining the Hollywood blockbuster, here are the most expensive films of all time, adjusted for inflation, per wikipedia

War and Peace (1968)   $560,000,000
Cleopatra (1963)   $286,400,000
Titanic (1997)   $247,000,000
Waterworld (1995)   $229,000,000
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)   $216,400,000
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)   $210,000,000
Spider-Man 2 (2004)   $210,000,000
King Kong (2005)   $207,000,000
Superman Returns (2006)   $204,000,000
Wild Wild West (1999)   $203,400,000
Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)   $198,800,000
The 13th Warrior (1999)   $190,700,000
Troy (2004)   $184,300,000
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe   $180,000,000
The Polar Express (2004)   $172,100,000
Armageddon (1998)   $171,100,000
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)   $170,900,000
Van Helsing (2004)   $168,500,000
Superman (1978)   $168,000,000
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)   $162,800,000
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)   $162,000,000
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)   $162,000,000
The Perfect Storm (2000)   $161,800,000
Alexander (2004)   $161,600,000
Poseidon (2006)   $160,000,000
The World Is Not Enough (1999)   $159,800,000
Godzilla (1998)   $159,100,000
Stuart Little (1999)   $157,400,000
Pearl Harbor (2001)   $156,900,000
Die Another Day (2002)   $156,000,000
Tarzan (1999)$155,800,000

First of all, I'm amazed that even adjusting for inflation, the most expensive movies are getting more and more expensive. But I guess that proves my point. The most notable aberrations are at the top, but arguably those are movies from before the studios really learned the formula (Cleopatra, War and Peace). Titanic fits the formula in some ways, breaks it in others, but overall the pattern is very clear.

Quote from: droogHere's a list of the most popular (=high-grossing) films:

TITANIC
I'm willing to concede this one.

SHREK 2 ($441)

Totally an adventure. Encounters and battles included.  

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST ($370)

I can't count this one as evidence. I think many people went to it out of a sense of obligation or controversy.

FINDING NEMO ($339)

Total adventure. In fact, it's a quest.

FORREST GUMP ($329). I concede this one. Interestingly, the book is an adventure, but not the movie. In the book at one point he ends up as an astronaut, then crash lands and ends up in the jungle with an intelligent sign-languaging ape. Funny/weird NPCs, battles/movement. It's got it all.

LION KING ($328)

Adventure! Classic quest style.

THE SIXTH SENSE ($293)

I concede this one. Not an adventure.

HOME ALONE ($285)

Very close to an Adventure! Multiple encounters, locations, traps, and the NPC were pretty much made to be beaten. Only lacks movement.

MEET THE FOCKERS ($278)
I concede this one. Not an adventure.


SHREK ($267)
Adventure!

THE GRINCH ($260)

I could concede this one.

MONSTERS, INC. ($255)
Adventure!

Quote from: SilverlionProblem with some of the ones you've bolded /are/ in many cases action/adventure genre (Monsters Inc, is action comedy--you have good guys and bad guys and a chase scene)

Finding Nemo (Classic adventure: Search for lost family member)
Shrek 1  is a spoof of action adventure tropes (especially Disney Movies and Fairy tale "sanitization" ones) Shrek 2 is similar but adds more to the romantic-comedy aspects.
Heck Home Alone is in many ways one boy retelling of Magnificent 7 (7 Samurai's descendants.)

But is there a game that will do Shrek? As is, I mean, not just looking at the surface colour? I'd suggest that the actual plot of the film has little to do with action-adventure.

Similarly with Nemo. Sure, if you deconstruct it to the point where it's about the search for Nemo, you could possibly do it with an existing game (I could do it with HQ). But arguably it's about a lot more than that. And as with Shrek, it doesn't seem to come up on most roleplayers' favourites.

Personally, I think you could make a better case for Titanic – after all, it has guns.

So the larger point is this: obviously, there are many films out there whose popularity does not depend on action and adventure. If we expand the list to all-time favourites, we get things like The Shawshank Redemption and Twelve Angry Men. I already mentioned Citizen Kane.

In fact, I'm sure we all know people who loathe action-adventure. They're often dismissed in RPG circles.

I think this notion depends on circular logic: the most popular RPGs are about action-adventure, therefore that must be what attracts people. Well, I can think of a bare handful of games that step away from that paradigm, and none of them have any sort of marketing budget.

I skipped over this earlier...

Quote from: droogIf you didn't have roleplaying games already, would it be easy for the average person to recreate an action movie?

Basically, yes, I think it would be easier. Aside from the fact that violence has a broad appeal, I also think that externalized conflict is easier to conceptualize and easier to pace. Now, doing it really well for the big screen is a little harder since you need to give the characters some depth, maybe some inner conflict that parallels the external. But we are talking about amateur theater here...actually not even that, more like a popular entertainment akin to sports. Like RPGs, sports have a narrative continuity that imbues the events with greater meaning than the rules themselves. (Is this the year for Elway? Will the Red Sox choke?) They offer visible, visceral, external conflict. And a key part of the appeal, IMO, is that they combine these narrative qualities with unscripted resolution.

Basically, it's easier to position people for violent conflict, and easier to conceptualize the no-holds-barred resolution of conflict through objective, external mechanisms. Whereas internal conflict is hard to sell without having it come off as narcissistic posing.

Greg Costikyan has a few things to say about the uses of violence and externalized conflict over in this Salon.com article. Might be worth a look.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBasically, it's easier to position people for violent conflict, and easier to conceptualize the no-holds-barred resolution of conflict through objective, external mechanisms. Whereas internal conflict is hard to sell without having it come off as narcissistic posing.

That would depend rather, wouldn't it? It's a no-brainer to suggest that the roleplaying subculture as it exists finds violence easier to deal with. But what about all the other people who watch films and TV?

I show a friend HeroQuest – she snickers at me. I show her Nicotine Girls – she plays it and is impressed. I show another friend It Was a Mutual Decision – he wants to play it. What do you make of that?

There are a variety of people out there with different tastes, and products catering to those tastes will find an audience.(*) But that's not relevant to the definition of successful that Balbinus is using for this thread.

(*)One problem with niche products though is that if they can't be consumed alone--that is, if you need other people to enjoy them with--then they may see even less actual use. E.g. the 1,000 or so people worldwide who might enjoy game X in the abstract can't really enjoy it at all if they're scattered across the globe. Whereas a short story posted on the web could be enjoyed by 1,000 individually isolated people.

Quote from: droogBut is this a problem of not thinking outside the box?

No, it is a problem of what sells. Marketing a game of Action/Adventure is much easier than one of Romance. Another genre that translates well, occasionally, is comedy. Still, some stories translate well to codified systems while others have too many inconsistencies to be transfered well.

I made a my DRATs system for just the purpose of addressing these difficulties. It works but it will never be a commercial success. A lot of people, for whatever reason, do not want to hear that games sell. Telling drama does not.

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not think it will always be so nor that such unconventional games should never be made. However, to believe that there will be wide spread success and commercial gain, well, it is unlikely.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI made a my DRATs system for just the purpose of addressing these difficulties. It works but it will never be a commercial success. A lot of people, for whatever reason, do not want to hear that games sell. Telling drama does not.

But how much have you marketed your game, and to whom? Have you marketed it at all?

I would be interested to look at what you've done.

Quote from: BalbinusBy successful here I mean actively played by a sizable number of gaming groups, say at least a few hundred groups actively playing it or having played it.  Successful here does not mean covering its costs, artistic merit or meeting the game designer's vision (though I agree that those are alternate means of defining successful).

By this definition, there are many "generic" systems that can be used either for adventure or not that are successful.

Mind you, I believe that most of those games are being used to run adventures.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBy this definition, there are many "generic" systems that can be used either for adventure or not that are successful.

Mind you, I believe that most of those games are being used to run adventures.

Quite so, and tend to be better suited to that than to more thoughtful dramas.

Essentially, the argument is:

"Here's a test, which I call the blockbuster test:  Could you make a summer blockbuster about the game?  If so (as in the case of Vampire) then that indicates that it will probably sell."  

Now, naturally many blockbusters will not make good rpgs, but my argument is that to be commercially succesful (or to experience play outside the people directly associated with the rpg or its designers, which isn't quite the same thing) one key factor is whether the rpg is the kind of thing that could potentially make a good action orientated movie or thriller.

Other factors also matter, that just gives you the chance, whether you realise that chance is driven by other factors including marketing, but if you are not in that genre I doubt you will ever be that widely played.

Tony raises the interesting challenge of PTA, and Levi of generic rpgs, my answer is that in large part they are used to play adventure type games anyway.  Indeed, the concept of drift is useful here, even if not ostensibly written to produce adventure based gaming, if an rpg can be drifted to effectively provide that sort of gaming it still has a fair chance.

I would also note that in now 30 years of gaming there have been no widely played games that were about issues such as relationships or internal drama, and there have been attempts at that.

Edit:  As an aside, I was a bit brusque earlier in my replies, sorry for that, it was time pressure and nothing more.  I think good challenges have been raised, particularly by Tony, and in answering them I am looking to discuss them further, I'm not saying they're bad points.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(*)One problem with niche products though is that if they can't be consumed alone--that is, if you need other people to enjoy them with--then they may see even less actual use. E.g. the 1,000 or so people worldwide who might enjoy game X in the abstract can't really enjoy it at all if they're scattered across the globe. Whereas a short story posted on the web could be enjoyed by 1,000 individually isolated people.

This is critical.  A niche story or movie can still find an audience an can be enjoyed individually.  A niche game still needs a group, and so you need a group who are collectively willing to commit at least one and quite possibly several evenings to it.

I think that is why the more succesful niche rpgs support short term play, getting a group together for long term play of a niche topic is quite challenging, few will manage it.

I'll start a spin off thread though, because I'm in that sort of mood, on major genres and which are represented in rpgs.

Quote from: Balbinus"Here's a test, which I call the blockbuster test:  Could you make a summer blockbuster about the game?  If so (as in the case of Vampire) then that indicates that it will probably sell."
......................................
I would also note that in now 30 years of gaming there have been no widely played games that were about issues such as relationships or internal drama, and there have been attempts at that.

Point 1: Granted. Ceteris paribus, an action-adventure RPG has an excellent chance of selling to the current RPG subculture.

Point 2: Name them.

Quote from: droogPoint 1: Granted. Ceteris paribus, an action-adventure RPG has an excellent chance of selling to the current RPG subculture.

Point 2: Name them.

Name them huh?  Ok.

It was a mutual decision
Wuthering Heights
Best Friends
Nicotine Girls
Breaking the Ice

All recent I grant you, but none exactly taking the world by storm.  Some of those are a few years old now and still barely played by and large, outside their immediate circle anyway.

Neighbourhood, published 1982, about kids having ordinary childhood adventures may have been as well, but I don't know enough about it to be sure.

Quote from: BalbinusName them huh?  Ok.

It was a mutual decision
Wuthering Heights
Best Friends
Nicotine Girls
Breaking the Ice

You forgot Shooting the Moon. But Nicotine Girls and Wuthering Heights aren't even fully published games, so I think you come out behind.

Of the remaining, a couple are less than a year old. None of them have any sort of mass-market presence.

And there's always the possibility that none of these are actually any good as games, and the killer app is yet to come.

How can you tell?