The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First-person adventure[edit]

First-person adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization Randomran (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has no reliable sources to base it upon. It has not demonstrated that it is notable. The article cites no resources. This is also overcategorization, since there is no meaningful reason to start grouping adventure games by their first-person-ness. Third person shooters and first person shooters have meaningful differences in game play. The fact that an adventure is first person affects nothing but the graphics -- the game play is still exploration, investigation, narrative, and puzzle-solving. Many adventure games have a first person component, when you zoom in or look at something. The basic tools and game play never changes. Randomran 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There needs to be an assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm fairly sure the author didn't simply invent the term 'first-person adventure' out of his/her head. All the article needs is to be properly sourced and cleaned up so that it sounds less like original research (also, I'm not sure it needs the explanation of the difference between first- and third-person, but that's another cleanup thing). Needs work, not deletion. --carelesshx _talk 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Interactive fiction as to the best of my knowledge the term is interchangeable with that one (and Myst, a game cited as an example, is considered interactive fiction). 23skidoo (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep, the notable Metroid Prime series is a great example of this genre Knowitall (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment that's a pretty clear first person shooter, or an action-adventure game at best. first person adventure is just excessive categorization. most adventure games aren't categorized on this basis. 130.63.102.206 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment it's a first person adventure game. Not an FPS. Knowitall (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An unreferenced tag would probably suffice here. Rray (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Adventure game Even in its diminutive state the article's managed to get itself wrapped around its own neck and runs contrary to the way most genres are laid out on WP. A text adventure played in the first person is a text adventure played in the first person, not a first person text adventure - the narrative use of either first or second person plays second fiddle to the genre.

Defining genre is far from an exact science, many terms are bandied around, spliced together etc. The emergence of one very specific genre, First person shooter, has made it even more likely that either first or third person perspective will be smashed together with a genre to make an all-new one, but this doesn't mean that it is an established genre with established norms (which is the whole point of genres in the first place). Perspective in video games is a separate subject, first and third person perspectives could be applied to most genres, we should be careful about reeling off big long lists of genres which will ultimately confuse the reader and defeat the object of the articles.

Metroid Prime certainly is called a first person adventure (not least by [1] Nintendo themselves), but that doesn't mean that FPA is an established genre which needs an article, it doesn't mean that there are many comparable games to slot alongside it. Likewise, the 100k results mean that the term is used, (doubtless the perspectives are twinned as a descriptor with all the other genres) but doesn't mean each of these combinations can be written into a meaningful article. this article leads me to believe that both perspectives can be covered in adventure games. I'll continue looking for other sources. Someone another (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep major genre, multiple appropriate sources. DGG (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Metroid is a FPS, which is an action game. Nintendo games like Zelda and Metroid and Half Life are Action-Adventure games, even if promotional reviews might say "this is a fantastic adventure". This appears to be a confused article that tries to cram a literary technique of First-person narrative into video games. At most, someone should add a "See also: first-person narrative" in the first person shooter genre. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article could be improved if it is sourced, and this is a major genre in many games which DGG pointed out. PrestonH 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've done some reading, and still come to the same conclusion. Here's the problem. I looked at the Action-Adventure article, as someone suggested that I do. Here's an important quote:

With the decline of the adventure game genre, the action-adventure genre became much more prominent. As a side effect, action adventure games are sometimes simply labeled as adventure games by console gamers, usually to the protest of adventure purists.

And yet the article also tries to say that this is a really old genre, that involves no action. As if the first-personness of the game differentiates it from other adventure games. The article clearly contradicts itself. With such limited research out there to clarify this article -- none of it from notable sources -- this article should go. Randomran (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be researched or improved no matter what, then redirect/merge the article if necessary. I still go for keep as Google releases verifiable sources here and there (unless shown otherwise on another comment). PrestonH 03:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.